|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I already said the correlation wasn't perfect, but (as the article said, this is where I quoted it from) "Conlin, ... handily won nearly all the well-heeled waterfront neighborhoods, while the socialist Sawant ran strong in Seattle’s less-wealthy interior." In general, poorer people voted for Sawant and richer people voted for Conlin. Being poor makes you more likely (but not guaranteed!) to support Socialism, and being rich makes you less likely (but not guaranteed!) to oppose Socialism. People vote for candidates for many reasoIf somebody says "white men are richer than black women" you can't disprove it by pointing to Oprah and Beyonce. A big chunk of Americans think France is socialist. So I'd be careful not to get too excited about the prospect that the people in these surveys actually support socialism. The bottom line is that only a tiny percentage of Americans actually want literal socialism, and we're not likely to find good surveys exposing them. What's the total enrollment and demographic of socialist party members? That would be more along the lines of what I was referring too than this. RuanGacho posted:Socialism is the distribution of government resources for the good of the commons, hope that helps. No. It's a system whose supporters claim it will do that. Which makes it basically identical to every other political ideology. Rockopolis posted:So, those upper brackets that go for socialism, why do they support it? Or to flip it, the lower brackets that went the other way, why did they do that? Because ideology, especially extreme ideology isn't logical. A few people have implied that libertarianism might be good for the rich - it's not. Don't give it that. It would be a disaster for everyone. The current rich are only that way because they've had the state protecting them. You think the existing crop of billionaires have what it takes to be a warlord in an anarchist wasteland? I don't (the American ones anyway). The Koch's would be first on the chopping block. jrodefeld posted:This is so stupid. How do you think the rich get rich? The unjust rich are those that use the power of the State to expropriate the citizens, while the just rich are those who trade voluntarily on the market and satisfy consumers. By taking away that State and rejecting the legitimacy of the use of force, the wealthy gain wealth through satisfying consumers. Unless the rich have a steady stream of new profits and revenue, then their wealth will soon be consumed and they will fall into the middle class or even into poverty. If the "rich" all thought they would collude and piss off everyone else then that would be disastrous to their bottom line. There are no internal reasons why a market will favor one type of distribution over another. There doesn't have to be a significant middle class and there is no real limit on the rich. You're wrong that serving the middle class is necessarily more profitable because businesses have no reason to care where the demand exists. Yes they'll serve the poor and middle class if that's where the demand is. But if demographics are such that most of the demand is the rich who want yachts and mansions the market will happily and profitably serve that as well. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Oct 7, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The more I think about what it would take to start your own DRO, the more hilarious it is. Well, using the founders of historically successful emerging DROs as examples, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane both started out in the enforcement of branch of somebody else's DRO and then split off to found their own companies at an opportune time. Two heartwarming Horatio Alger stories of hard work, bootstraps, and mountains of severed heads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Don't forget the staggering incidents of rape, cannibalism, and enslavement! Half the world wouldn't have been shaped the way it is were it not for all that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:A few people have implied that libertarianism might be good for the rich - it's not. Don't give it that. It would be a disaster for everyone. The current rich are only that way because they've had the state protecting them. You think the existing crop of billionaires have what it takes to be a warlord in an anarchist wasteland? I don't (the American ones anyway). The Koch's would be first on the chopping block. I think China Mieville wrote an article some years ago (on floating libertarian cities?) that described libertarians as the losers of capitalism. Big-time industrialists and entrepreneurs are quite comfortable with having a government to influence that can open markets for them, make sea lanes safe, regulate demand and infrastructure...not to mention that when push comes to shove, it's a lot easier to bribe a single authority than a bunch of smaller warlords/kings/militias/microstates. They'll piss and moan about how much they have to pay to get their benefits, but the Waltons would likely poo poo their pants collectively if the Interstate highway system that makes their whole chain of supply possible was discontinued...or owned by a private rival.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
And those Waltons wouldn't be anywhere without food stamps to keep their employees from starving. not statism though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Something kinda obvious I just realized: In a JRod brand anarcho-capitalist libertarian society, how does a criminal reform? Like, say I'm Nathan "Dallas" Steele, notorious bank robber, but now I've seen the error of my ways and want to return to regular society and be productive again. In the current USA, well that's gonna be real hard because the system basically wants me to stay a criminal, but there is still a chance I can get a job somewhere, accept that as a felon I've lost some rights, and learn to live life without them. In some other countries, former felons do have a much easier time rejoining society than in the USA but for the sake of example let's just stick to the USA for now. In the Libertarian Freedomtopia, there is no process for me to reform. My DRO stopped covering me when I became a bank robber, and no DRO will sign me on because now I'm a rogue. I can't associate with anyone under a DRO of any kind*, and therefore can't work and so I literally have no choice but to keep robbing banks. *Other than Valhalla DRO of course, but let's say for the sake of example I can't get coverage with Vahalla DRO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:I think China Mieville wrote an article some years ago (on floating libertarian cities?) that described libertarians as the losers of capitalism. Big-time industrialists and entrepreneurs are quite comfortable with having a government to influence that can open markets for them, make sea lanes safe, regulate demand and infrastructure...not to mention that when push comes to shove, it's a lot easier to bribe a single authority than a bunch of smaller warlords/kings/militias/microstates. They'll piss and moan about how much they have to pay to get their benefits, but the Waltons would likely poo poo their pants collectively if the Interstate highway system that makes their whole chain of supply possible was discontinued...or owned by a private rival. You remember correctly. Among other damning and memorable passages, he describes the libertarian utopia as "an Orange County of the soul." quote:None of this is surprising. Libertarianism is not a ruling-class theory. It may be indulged, certainly, for the useful ideas it can throw up, and its prophets have at times influenced dominant ideologies–witness the cack-handed depredations of the “Chicago Boys” in Chile after Allende’s bloody overthrow. But untempered by the realpolitik of Reaganism and Thatcherism, the anti-statism of “pure” libertarianism is worse than useless to the ruling class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:I think China Mieville wrote an article some years ago (on floating libertarian cities?) that described libertarians as the losers of capitalism. Big-time industrialists and entrepreneurs are quite comfortable with having a government to influence that can open markets for them, make sea lanes safe, regulate demand and infrastructure...not to mention that when push comes to shove, it's a lot easier to bribe a single authority than a bunch of smaller warlords/kings/militias/microstates. They'll piss and moan about how much they have to pay to get their benefits, but the Waltons would likely poo poo their pants collectively if the Interstate highway system that makes their whole chain of supply possible was discontinued...or owned by a private rival. Well the simple fact is that it's better to be top dog in a rich society than a poor one. That, and the current crop of super rich are necessarily products of the current system. If they think otherwise, they're mistaken. The rich earn an excellent return on their tax dollars. Buffet is candid about the fact that he'd be nowhere if he were born in most other places/times. It's obviously true. SedanChair posted:And those Waltons wouldn't be anywhere without food stamps to keep their employees from starving. not statism though. No the Walton's don't particularly care about their employees. Their customers though depend on those foodstamps, roads, etc. Your statement implies you think the Walton's should be responsible for their employees survival - I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Your example sucks. First of all, the consent is explicit, no rules lawyering required. The state owns the roads and distributes permits to use them. You sign a bunch of paperwork when you receive this permit, which is you giving your consent. You're totally free to drive on your compound's private road, as drunk as you want, so long as you don't go onto public roads Attempts have been/are being made to extend that same logic to welfare in the form of drug tests. You can't say the state doesn't own that relief aid and distributes approval to use them. Just because the government owns something you've passed a neutral test to use doesn't mean your rights go away. SedanChair posted:I know you cousin. I know you. You believe in freedom. But you and I both know that freedom doesn't just come in the form of lower taxes. Admit it. poo poo you believe in basic income. Exactly no libertarians now living believe in that. You have good music taste. I can't argue with this unfortunately. Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek would be called socialist over believing in mincome today.  Hopefully our generation gets kicked in the face enough to change their minds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:48
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Attempts have been/are being made to extend that same logic to welfare in the form of drug tests. You can't say the state doesn't own that relief aid and distributes approval to use them. Just because the government owns something you've passed a neutral test to use doesn't mean your rights go away. The reason drug testing for welfare recipients is deemed a violation of the Fifth Amendment is because there is not one iota of reasonable cause to justify it. The act of applying for welfare does not make you a potential threat to others. Driving two tons of metal and plastic on a public road does. Hope this information helps you in any future duel of wits with the Highway Patrol. Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Attempts have been/are being made to extend that same logic to welfare in the form of drug tests. You can't say the state doesn't own that relief aid and distributes approval to use them. Just because the government owns something you've passed a neutral test to use doesn't mean your rights go away. If someone on welfare using drugs was a serious societal hazard (like someone driving under the influence) then you might have a point, but that isn't the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Random question(s). Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand acolyte, right? And generally Randians don't believe in loose monetary policy, right? Yet, Greenspan was known for supporting the idea of low interest rates during his time at the fed, wasn't he? What happened there?
Mr Interweb fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:The reason drug testing for welfare recipients is deemed a violation of the Fifth Amendment is because there is not one iota of reasonable cause to justify it. The act of applying for welfare does not make you a potential threat to others. Driving two tons of metal and plastic on a public road does. Hope this information helps you in any future duel of wits with the Highway Patrol. Ytlaya posted:If someone on welfare using drugs was a serious societal hazard (like someone driving under the influence) then you might have a point, but that isn't the case. People who want welfare drug tests do believe WELFARE QUEEN THUGS ON REEFER are public hazards. You're free to disagree after they've run away with the implied consent principle and passed a law that would've been laughed out of a court otherwise. I'm aware of the legal logic behind why breathalyze-or-else totally isn't a 5th issue, but reasonable cause is a laughable defense. RC/PC covers police doing stops/detainment for lots of dangerous situations and you don't lose your 5A there. Yet. At the very least, levying criminal punishment past administrative license loss on a test refusal is completely out of line (Ohio does this IIRC). How do you feel about sobriety checkpoints stopping cars at random?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Random question. Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand acolyte, right(s)? And generally Randians don't believe in loose monetary policy, right? Yet, Greenspan was known for supporting the idea of low interest rates during his time at the fed, wasn't he? What happened there? The short version is that Greenspan loves sucking the cock of the rich and the powerful. He grew up in a relatively poor environment, and his interactions with the truely wealthy left him wanting to not only join that club, but to be accepted and admired by what he saw as the best of the best. I personally think Greenspan took Ayn Rand's core belief of incredible selfishness to heart. His policies were designed to get people, especially bankers, to love him which is what he wanted. The fact that they were heavily damaging to the rest of the world didn't really matter at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Your example sucks. First of all, the consent is explicit, no rules lawyering required. The state owns the roads and distributes permits to use them. You sign a bunch of paperwork when you receive this permit, which is you giving your consent. You're totally free to drive on your compound's private road, as drunk as you want, so long as you don't go onto public roads You aren't free in many states to drive (or operate other vehicles) drunk on private property. The 4th and 5th amendment being essentially suspended when it comes to DUIs and other "think of the children" crimes is a travesty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Cops don't set up DUI checkpoints on private property. Sorry you don't like requirements that people operating heavy machinery on public roads be required to demonstrate their competence to do so when asked, maybe build your own roads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:People who want welfare drug tests do believe WELFARE QUEEN THUGS ON REEFER are public hazards. What they believe, and what they are able to prove in court are two completely different things. And actually, no, those people don't want mandatory drug testing because they believe that welfare recipients represent an immediate danger to public safety. You just made that up. They want mandatory drug testing because they believe that welfare recipients are using government assistance to buy drugs. Which brings us back to my first sentence. Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Cops don't set up DUI checkpoints on private property. Sorry you don't like requirements that people operating heavy machinery on public roads be required to demonstrate their competence to do so when asked, maybe build your own roads. Cops can and do arrest people on private property for DUI. I am fully supportive of police efforts to remove people with unsafe cars or behavior from the road though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
You can be arrested for DUI for reasonable suspicion on private property, just like any other crime. But I've never ever heard or cops setting up a checkpoint on private property and checking everyone who goes through regardless of cause, so unless you've got links then I'm going to assume you're making that up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You can be arrested for DUI for reasonable suspicion on private property, just like any other crime. But I've never ever heard or cops setting up a checkpoint on private property and checking everyone who goes through regardless of cause, so unless you've got links then I'm going to assume you're making that up. Cops have almost certainly set up DUI checkpoints on private roads, as they typically reserve the right to patrol private roads accessible to the public and treat them as public roadways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
A long stretch of private road in heavy use is all good for a checkpoint in my opinion. We are talking about short drive ways and summer cottage roads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
I have no proof that this happened but I'm really really mad about it!  Government tyranny! On the other hand, you're totally cool with actual examples of cops straight up murdering certain people for jaywalking...
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I have no proof that this happened but I'm really really mad about it! Lots of roads in the country are privately owned and police set up speed traps and checkpoints on them as though they are public roads. Plenty of people have been arrested by police staking out parking lots of bars too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Good on the cops. Preventing the drunk from getting on the road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
You can be arrested for trying to drive home from the bar while intoxicated? Freedom is dead. I mean I'd have to go alllllll the way back there to get my car the next morning if I took a cab. Does this police state have no humanity?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
You suck at reading. The Waltons would be upset if food stamps went away because their employees would then starve to death unless their pay was increased. Eventually, you will run out of people to starve to death working for you and no longer be able to sell things. It is therefore in their interest for food stamps to exist, as it helps them maintain their bottom line by suppressing wages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
on the left posted:Lots of roads in the country are privately owned and police set up speed traps and checkpoints on them as though they are public roads. Plenty of people have been arrested by police staking out parking lots of bars too. I'm pretty sure those private roads involve the owners voluntarily agreeing to it, check mate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'm pretty sure those private roads involve the owners voluntarily agreeing to it, check mate. Only because of unreasonable state coercion. The barrel of a gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No. It's a system whose supporters claim it will do that. Which makes it basically identical to every other political ideology. People can correct me if I'm wrong but the entire point of "the commons" is that not everything is public property but we have some mutual interests as a society. Communism doesn't advocate that, nor libertarianism and most socialists I'm aware of would argue that is a strong structural reason why capitalism is failing us right now, because society is trying to willfully ignore that conceit. So it is not literally the same with everything on its face. Jrodefeld's contract breach is now at $126,326 in BTC. As such I am announcing that I am opening contract on his repayment to all DRO's willing to take action to collect payment. His crime contractual failure to argue in good faith, as we are all upstanding citizens of liberty I am sure that the price of his malfeasance will be acceptable compensation, any DRO that can prove another one is conspiring to prevent collection of the fee will be awarded double the fee as backed by my insuring DRO the Unrepentant Statists Army. I look forward to conducting business. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'm pretty sure those private roads involve the owners voluntarily agreeing to it, check mate. No, it's by default in most places if the roads are accessible to the public. This is why the police can bust you for doing doughnuts in a parking lot, but the owners of a parking lot can put cones around the entrances and have an autocross meet. VitalSigns posted:You can be arrested for trying to drive home from the bar while intoxicated? Freedom is dead. You should be allowed to drive intoxicated on private roads if the property owner allows it. Or for parking lots, you should be allowed to sleep in your car drunk off your rear end if the property owner allows it. on the left fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
on the left posted:No, it's by default in most places if the roads are accessible to the public. This is why the police can bust you for doing doughnuts in a parking lot, but the owners of a parking lot can put cones around the entrances and have an autocross meet. I'm sorry child, but you're confusing property owners not wanting you to do donuts in the lot with the police having an unambiguous right to pop into parking lots to cite people for it. You are allowed to do that. You can do it all you want as long as you asked the owner first. Same thing actually goes for the parking lots and sleeping - again, the owner has to explicitly allow you and ideally would give you something to put up to tell the cops they want you to do that. What you aren't getting is private property owners often agree with the cops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'm sorry child, but you're confusing property owners not wanting you to do donuts in the lot with the police having an unambiguous right to pop into parking lots to cite people for it. No, you are wrong because police are allowed in many states to enforce traffic laws on any roadway accessible to the public regardless of ownership. I guarantee you it is possible to get a reckless driving ticket on a road you own yourself if the public is allowed to drive on it. Some states go even further and apply a certain subset of driving laws to anywhere within the state, such as reckless driving or DUI. See this article or this lengthy opinion by a Florida AG who thinks that in Florida, the rules apply to publicly accessible roadways, even if the controlling association doesn't want laws enforced (i.e. a golf course community wants people to be able to drink and drive golf carts around).
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
on the left posted:No, you are wrong because police are allowed in many states to enforce traffic laws on any roadway accessible to the public regardless of ownership. I guarantee you it is possible to get a reckless driving ticket on a road you own yourself if the public is allowed to drive on it. They are allowed to enforce it in that unless the property owner specifically bars them from doing it, they can do it. Not my fault you want to drive on only private roads without gates or something? You clearly didn't read the full thing you linked, because the court specifically mentioned that the golf community granted easements on the roads for public services to come in for routine patrols. No poo poo that if you do that the cops will ticket like normal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
DUI/DWI laws applying to golf carts would upend the economies of several east coast resort towns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They are allowed to enforce it in that unless the property owner specifically bars them from doing it, they can do it. Not my fault you want to drive on only private roads without gates or something? You have to prevent general access to the public, via a gate or something in most cases for police to not enforce laws. And you aren't able to pull the "I own this property" card to get out of tickets you receive on your own land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
You're missing the original point. Checkpoints stop you, it's a police stop. It's at random without probable cause. It doesn't need to fit your personal government tyranny definition to be very bad no good regardless of what dangerous thing you're trying to stop. MADD's defense for it is pretty hilariously "only people who are afraid of being caught are against them." 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You're missing the original point. Checkpoints stop you, it's a police stop. It's at random without probable cause. It doesn't need to fit your personal government tyranny Well I'd argue that only people who are driving drunk have any cause of concern beyond mild annoyance. You could argue that the stops permit the police to engage in other terrible procedures like Civil Forfeiture and the like, but then your problems are really that the police are engaging in those procedures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:A big chunk of Americans think France is socialist. But that wasn't our discussion. I showed that they would be more likely to support socialism than would the Middle Class, which was your contention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Police DUI checkpoints are awful, as they are basically a carte blanche to pursue driving while black/long haired/poor searches of vehicles. OTOH drunk driving is terrible and should be pursued with a vengeance. On the gripping hand, .08 might be a little low (situationally) and unduly influenced by MADD, who are arguably a corrupt religious institution. EDIT: Arguments over percentages could easily be solved by robust and reliable public transportation. moller fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You're missing the original point. Checkpoints stop you, it's a police stop. It's at random without probable cause. It doesn't need to fit your personal government tyranny You give up rights in exchange for access to public roads. As someone who doesn't drive drunk and does not want to be hit by a drunk driver, I am actively in favor of the idea of periodically and randomly being tested to ensure my sobriety. I mean honestly, how the hell do you describe something that reduces drunk driving "no good", to quote the exact words you used to describe it. The salient point though is that it's not illegal, unconstitutional, or a violation of any core principles of humanity, and it also likely to be good policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:06
|
|
